Research

1
CODAR HF Radar Network Development LEO, NJSOS,
NEOS, SCMI
Josh Kohut Hugh Roarty Scott Glenn, Oscar
Schofield, Bob Chant, et al. Coastal Ocean
Observation Lab (COOL)Institute of Marine and
Coastal Sciences (IMCS)Rutgers University
Research http//marine.rutgers.edu/cool
Education http//coolclassroom.org
Public Outreach http//www.thecoolroom.org
2
New Jersey Shelf Bathymetry
3
Coastal Research Observatories
LEO-15 Cabled Observatory
LEO Coastal Predictive Skill Experiments
North East Observing System
New Jersey Shelf Observing System
4
Coastal Ocean Observation Lab Observatory Control
Room The COOLRoom
CODAR Network
Glider Fleet
X-Band
L-Band
5
5 MHz
CODAR System Antennas
Receive Antenna
Transmit Antenna
25 MHz and 13 MHz
6
Typical CODAR Remote Site Setup
Transmitter Receiver
7
Remote site power requirements
Desktop w/ Monitor (W) Laptop (W)
Transmitter 150 150
Receiver 100 100
Computer 350 100
Air Cond. 1000 1000
Total 1600 1350
Typical Monthly Power bill
8
Remote Site Communication Rates
File Type Size Frequency 3 hour Total
MB Minutes MB 56K Cable T1
Time Series 12 4.3 506.25 59 11.3 0.96
Range Files 6 17.1 63.28 7 1.4 0.12
CS 9 17.1 94.92 11 2.1 0.18
CSS 9.9 30 59.40 7 1.3 0.11
CSA 10 180 10.00 1 0.2 0.02
Radial Files 0.03 180 0.03 0.003 0.0007 0.0001
Transfer Time (Hours)
9
Complete 2-Site System fits easily into small van
10
A Rare Ideal Antenna Setup Nantucket , MA
Transmit Antenna
Receive Antenna
50 meters
11
New Jersey CODAR Installations
Loveladies, NJ
Brant Beach, NJ
USCG LSU Wildwood, NJ
12
USF Long_Range Flagpole Site St. Petersburg, FL.
13
Texas AM Mobile CODAR System
14
Point Sur, CODAR/SeaSonde
15
Japan
Korea
Korea
Japan
16
Nautøy, Norway
17
Sandy Hook, NJ - March, 2004
Single Post 25 MHz Transmitter Receiver
18
Main Product Radial Current Maps
19
Courtesy of Hans Graber, Rich Garvine, Bob Chant,
Andreas Munchow, Scott Glenn and
Mike Crowley
20
OSCR Comparison with Moored ADCP
21
(No Transcript)
22
Surface Velocity Comparison with ADCP C
July, 1998
23
Number of Radial Current Vectors 25 MHz (Red)
5 MHz (Blue)
24
Role of Antenna Patterns in System Calibration
25
Measured Clear Site Antenna Patterns
Cluttered Environment
Clear Environment
2.4 m Ground Plane
Loop 1 Loop 2
26
Beam patterns affect all HF radars
Antenna B
Antenna A
Clear Environment
Cluttered Environment
27
Improving HF Radar Surface Current Measurements
with Measured Antenna Beam Patterns
Josh Kohut and Scott Glenn - J. Atmos. Ocean.
Tech., 2003, v20, 1303-1316.
RMS Difference R2 Pattern
9.53 cm/s 0.71 Ideal
7.37 cm/s 0.90 Measured

• The local environment plays a significant role
  in pattern distortion.
• System accuracy improves when the data is
  calibrated with the measured pattern.
• When MUSIC uses the measured pattern, velocity
  vectors are more consistently put in the correct
  angular bin.

28
Sample Data Quality Check -- Tides, GDOP, Percent
Coverage
29
Seasonal Current Variability on the New Jersey
Inner Shelf
Josh Kohut, Scott Glenn, and Bob Chant JGR NEOS
Special Issue - Accepted

• The influence of stratification is evident
  through a relatively steady current response
  strongly correlated with the wind during the
  stratified season
• The influence of the local topography on the
  surface current variability is dependent on the
  slope, with a tendency for the variability to be
  more aligned with steeper topography.

Annual Mean
30
3940 3935 3930 3925 3920 3915 3910
The inner-shelf response to tropical storm Floyd
Before
Josh Kohut, Scott Glenn, and Jeff Paduan JGR NEOS
Special Issue In review

• The increased influence of bottom friction damps
  the typical inertial tail seen in deeper ocean
  responses and shortens the relaxation phase from
  several days to hours.
• Unlike the typical Noreaster in which the
  transport in this location is along-shore toward
  the south and onshore, the currents coinciding
  with the largest waves are along-shore toward the
  south but with an offshore component

3940 3935 3930 3925 3920 3915 3910
After
During
31
Flow reversals during upwelling conditions on the
New Jersey inner shelf. Robert J. Chant, Scott
Glenn, Josh Kohut. JGR NEOS Special Issue -
Accepted

• Onshore transport in the lower layer never
  compensates for offshore flow in the surface
  layer, suggestive that the mass-balance requires
  a 3-dimensional closure.
• Flow reversal provides a significant fraction of
  cool water to the evolving upwelling center.
• Off-shore veering is due to enhanced friction
  over a shoaling and rougher topography.

32
CODAR Data Assimilation Example
33
BIS SLDMB Trajectory
From Jim ODonnell
34
24-Hour SLDMB Trajectories

• Black Actual SLDMB Trajectory
• Red Trajectory Predicted From NOAA Data
• Blue Trajectory Predicted From CODAR Data

35
Tanker runs aground off Cape May, NJ
At approximately 0715 EDT the T/V CRUDE TARGET
grounded while enroute into Delaware Bay. The
position of the ship is 3848.5 N / 07437.3 W or
approximately 13 miles ESE of Cape May, NJ. The
ship is carrying 42 million gallons of West
African Crude For comparison, the Exxon Valdez
spilled about 11 million gallons of the 53
million gallons of crude oil it was carrying
For this particular incident, we went to the
Rutgers CODAR site, to help with the calibration.
The web site provided not only data but valuable
analysis on the data. Through a phone number
provided on the web site I also contacted Josh
Kohut who was very helpful in providing
additional information concerning the real-time
data as well as personal observations of how the
coastal currents typically behave off the New
Jersey coastline. - Glen
Watabayashi Oceanographer
(NOAA/OPR/HAZMAT)
36
Wave Time Series January, 2004
NOAA Delaware Bay Buoy Stevens
Pressure Sensor CODAR
37
CODAR Derived Wave Spectra January, 2004
Primary User NWS Regional Office Rip Tide
Forecasting
38
(No Transcript)
39
Presidents Day Blizzard February 2003
Long-Range HF Radar GPS- Synchronized
at 4.55MHz Range 200 km
40
Intercomparison of an ADCP, Standard and
Long-Range High-Frequency Radar Influence of
Horizontal and Vertical Shear
Hugh Roarty, Josh Kohut, and Scott Glenn IEEE,
2003

• Use of Measured Antenna Patterns Improved
  Comparison
• Decreased Vertical Shear due to Strong
  Stratification Led to Closer ADCP/HF Radar
  Comparisons
• Differences Between ADCP and HF Radar
  Measurements are shown to Depend on the Strength
  of the Horizontal Shear

Site Depth Instrument
COOL 1 10.1 m RDI ADCP
COOL 2 14.9 m SonTek ADP
COOL 3 18.0 m RDI ADCP
COOL 4 20.7 m SonTek ADP
COOL 5 21.9 m RDI ADCP
41
Long-range System Validation Tuckerton, NJ
42
(No Transcript)
43
Initial comparison to COOL5 ADCP
Ideal Pattern, 8.27 cm/s RMS Difference
Measured Pattern, 7.10 cm/s RMS Difference
44
(No Transcript)
45
6 km
Long-Range SeaSonde
2.5 m
BIN 20
BIN 19
BIN 18
5 m
BIN 17
12 m
BIN 16
BIN 15
BIN 14
BIN 13
BIN 12
BIN 11
BIN 10
BIN 9
Bin 16 to 11, entire record RMS Difference 7.2
cm/sec
COOL 5
NTS
46
Long-Range SeaSonde
2.5 m
BIN 19
BIN 20
BIN 16
BIN 18
BIN 19
BIN 15
BIN 17
BIN 18
BIN 14
BIN 16
BIN 17
BIN 13
BIN 15
BIN 16
BIN 12
BIN 14
BIN 15
BIN 11
BIN 13
BIN 14
BIN 10
BIN 12
BIN 13
BIN 9
BIN 12
BIN 11
BIN 10
BIN 9
RMS Difference 6.07 cm/sec
COOL 4
COOL 5
COOL 3
4 km
4 km
NTS
47
Horizontal Shear between COOL3-Bin 12
and COOL5-Bin 16 6.07 cm/sec
Horizontal Shear between surrounding CODAR
Bins 5.9 cm/s 7.6 cm/s Range
Cell 4 5.7 cm/sec Angular Bin
230 7.2 cm/sec
48
CODAR/ADCP Comparisons Sorted by ADCP
Horizontal Shear
ADCP Horizontal Shear CODAR-ADCP RMS Difference
lt5 cm/s 6.7 cm/s (97 pts)
lt4 cm/s 6.8 cm/s (82 pts)
lt3 cm/s 6.2 cm/s (54 pts)
lt2 cm/s 6.1 cm/s (41 pts)
lt1 cm/s 5.9 cm/s (22 pts)
ADCP Bin 16 to 11 - RMS difference 7.2 cm/s
49
Temporal Variability of the ADCP RMS Difference
pts Cool 5 Bin 17 (cm/s) Cool 3 Bin 15 (cm/s)
1 4.27 7.00
2 2.82 5.55
3 1.86 5.49
4 1.47 5.49
5 1.04 5.34
6 0.70 5.32
7 0.00 5.22
50
Raw Velocity Radial Current Comparisons CODAR
data requires at least two points for merge
Comparison RMS Difference
Cool 5 ADCP _at_ 3m and Cool 5 ADCP _at_ 6m 6.25 cm/s
CODAR and Cool 5 ADCP _at_ 3m 5.86 cm/s
Cool 5 ADCP _at_ 3m and Cool 3 ADCP _at_ 3m (8 km Separation) 5.22 cm/s
CODAR and COOL 3 ADCP _at_ 3m (8 km Separation) 6.3 cm/s
51
RMS Difference Cool 5 Bin 17 v. CODAR RC 4
ADCP
vs. Angle
ADCP
vs. Range
52
Interpolation
Tuckerton
COOL 1
COOL 2
COOL 3
COOL 4
COOL 5
1 3 3 1
53
Raw Velocity Radial Current Comparisons CODAR
data requires at least two points for merge
Comparison RMS Difference
Cool 5 ADCP _at_ 3m and Cool 5 ADCP _at_ 6m 6.25 cm/s
CODAR and Cool 5 ADCP _at_ 3m 5.86 cm/s
Interpolated CODAR and Cool 5 ADCP _at_ 3m 4.98 cm/s
Cool 5 ADCP _at_ 3m and Cool 3 ADCP _at_ 3m (8 km Separation) 5.22 cm/s
CODAR and COOL 3 ADCP _at_ 3m (8 km Separation) 6.3 cm/s
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
CODAR and ADCP Comparisons (yd 209-211)
Red line RMS Difference between CODAR and each
ADCP bin
2.58 cm/s Minimum RMS Difference Between CODAR
ADCP
2.82 cm/s ADCP to ADCP RMS Difference due to
Horizontal Shear (COOL5 ADCP _at_ 3m v.
COOL3 ADCP _at_ 3m)
57
NJSOS Operational Research Results Two year
average CODAR surface currents (2002-2003)
58
NJSOS Operational Research Results Data
Quality Check Percent Coverage and M2 Tidal
Ellipses
59
NJSOS Operational Research Results-Annual
Seasonal Variability
2002 Mean
2003 Mean
Winter Mean
Summer Mean
60
Spatial Maps 10/16/2002 0700 GMT
1002 mb
Contour resolution 1 mb
61
10/16/2002 1500 GMT
991 mb
Contour resolution 1 mb
62
10/16/2002 1800 GMT
989 mb
Contour resolution 1 mb
63
10/17/2002 0000 GMT
992 mb
Contour resolution 1 mb
64
NJSOS Operational Research Results 1-Week
Average surface currents and satellite
imagery Realization of the cross-shelf transport
jet - October, 2003
AVHRR SST CODAR
MODIS NWLR CODAR
65
NJSOS Operational Research Results Cross-shelf
glider section
66
Improvements to Currents Bistatic

• GPS synchronization allows precise timing and
  control of transmit signal sweep, allowing
• separation of Tx and Rx Bistatic
  Geometry.
• GPS synchronization allows multiple transmitters
  to occupy same frequency band
• simultaneously
• Multiple Tx signals can be intercepted by
  multiple receivers and differentiated by
• modulation multi-plexing. Each Rx-Tx pair
  will produce an independent look for ship
• detection Multi-Static Geometry.

67
Single Monostatic System
Monostatic Systems
Bistatic Transmitters
Number of Looks
1 0 1
68
Monostatic Network
Monostatic Systems
Bistatic Transmitters
Number of Looks
5 0 5
69
Multi-static Network
Monostatic Systems
Bistatic Transmitters
Number of Looks
5 0 5
5 5 25
70
Multi-static Network with buoy
Monostatic Systems
Bistatic Transmitters
Number of Looks
5 0 5
5 5 25
5 6 30
71
25 MHz Transmit Buoy
5 MHz Transmit Buoy
Vessel-based Transmitter
Shore-based Transmitter
Bistatic Transmitters
72
Shore to Shore
Bistatic Development Tests
Buoy to Shore
Bistatic
Buoy to Shore
73
Bistatic Data collected in Hawaii
Monostatic
Bistatic
74
GPS Synchronization Bistatic
Ship to Shore
R/V Endeavor University of Rhode Island
75
GPS Synchronization Bistatic
Ship to Shore
76
NEOS The NorthEast Observing System since 2000
Linked Local Observatories HF Radar Backbone
77
NEOS CODAR Network
Ocean.US Surface Current Mapping Initiative 2003
As of January 2004
78
Operational Data Distribution Route Map
79
CODAR Vessel Tracking Test Targets
USCGC Finback
R/V Endeavor
SeaTow 41
M/V Oleander
SeaTow 25
80
Detection Algorithm

• Simultaneous multiple sliding window
• FFTs in Doppler processing
• Two types of background calculation ---
• space and time
• 3D background (Time, Range and
• Doppler) varying with sea echoes
• Thresholding of peaks --- local SNR of
• monopole or at least one of the two
• dipole antennas have to be above the
• threshold
• MUSIC algorithm used to determine
• bearing
• Bearing precision determined by SNR
• (1/sqrt(SNR))

81
SeaTow 41 Detections
82
Ship Tracking Algorithm

• A Kalman Filter provides a recursive solution to
  the least squares problem.
• Assumptions include linear target motion and
  normally distributed measurement errors.
• Tracker inputs are time radar transmitter and
  receiver positions range, bearing, and range
  rate and range, bearing, and range rate
  uncertainties.
• Tracker outputs are target position velocity
  and estimates of position and velocity
  uncertainties (covariance matrix).
• Target Maneuver Test a statistical test is used
  to estimate whether a combination of two straight
  tracks fit the data better than a single straight
  track.

Oleander Constant Course and Speed Tracker
Solution Using CODAR Detections from 23 November
2002
83
USCGC Finback Single site tracking Using
standard waveform (current mapping)
Sample Spectra
Tracker results
84
SeaTow 25 Small/Fast tracking Multiple frequency
tests (25 5 MHz)
85
7 Element SuperDirective Antenna
Sponsors Counter Narco Terrorism Program
Office Department of Homeland Security
86
Operational Deployments of CODAR HF Radars
Sustained operation demonstrated worldwide by
many Antenna pattern measurements enable
deployments at less than ideal sites In
comparisons with ADCPs off New Jersey,
CODAR to ADCP RMS Differences are comparable to
ADCP to ADCP Horizontal and Vertical Shear
RMS Differences High Resolution systems used
extensively by scientists Emerging Long Range
networks providing new insights Regional and
National networks are being constructed High-visi
bility applications include Surface
currents Search And
Rescue Coast Guard Oil
Spill Response NOAA HazMat Surface
waves for surf zone forecasting - NOAA
Vessel tracking Counter Narco Terrorism,
Homeland Security